excreationist

E_muse:
This is really getting off topic, but anyway...

Reason and intuitive impulses both use the mechanics of the brain, except that reason is more disciplined and is more step by step while intuition involves the brain just arriving at an answer without you really knowing the reasons behind it.

There are many chemicals in the brain. Anyway, the brain is like a complex computer with about 100 billion highly interconnected neurons. I think there is some kind of central processor. This processor can guide our thought processes using semi-formal reasoning. It uses the emotional signals of pleasure and pain to work out what situations to repeat or avoid. Pleasure is just the compulsion to repeat a situation and pain is just the compulsion to avoid a situation (depending on the feelings intensity).
So it isn't just a soup of chemicals - it is like a machine where the chemicals just send signals.

About happiness - there are two kinds - temporary pleasure, and contentment. In the case of contentment, while there is pain or expected pain (fear) there is still a kind of optimism rather than deep despair.

Usually people talk about reason vs. emotion. Anyway, if you are being guided by reason, let's say you see a kid a long distance away, (e.g. 50 metres) drowning at the beach and you're the only person around. What "reason" is there to save that kid? You could be risking your own life, and you're also using up your time. Or is there an objective morality that doesn't require emotion to help during moral dilemmas, so that reason can be what governs us?

[ February 03, 2002: Message edited by: excreationist ]</p>

hedonologist

(edited to add part in bold near the end)
I see what you are saying now. I phrased that badly. I meant that happiness may not be caused (solely) by knowing any particular fact or inferences drawn from knowing it.
No, reason could be ("caused by" or corresponding with) just one of many chemical processes. I'm saying that different chemical processes may play a larger role, and then rationalizations of why one is feeling bad mistake the bad feeling as being caused solely by believing a certain fact, such as that there is no heaven.
I suppose there would have to be some magic or supernatural influences in that case, unless you are referring to reason as the subjective aspect of the experience and defining that as non-chemical.
Well brains communicate to us basically, that they correspond with an experiencer who suffers from certain states of that brain, whereas bricks do not. How would we know a brick were not corresponding with the experience of some experiencer who we would not recognize because we can not relate our own bodies to theirs, to understand their cries of pain, etc?
So my main point is made, I think.
I'm not saying either one has no non-material aspect, but the material (by my definition) is the only thing we can alter to change any experience, whether that be in the form of thoughts or drugs, unless the immaterial is defined as some sort of "substance" as well, instead of calling that "substance" material. It gets kinda nebulous unless we discuss the affect of a belief in "materialism" on behavior, and even (re)define "materialism" and "dualism" in terms of behavior.
What does a mean to say a reasonable experience is based in reason, unless this just means a person had an experience of deciding?
That is difficult to form any certain conclusions about. Maybe you could give an example, particularly if you have a practical solution for changing undesirable behavior, such as an certain emotional reaction of suffering.

It is certainly easier in the case of say, a misunderstanding of a math problem, to explain the experience in terms of a flaw in reasoning, and then to correct it by explaining how to reason.
To the extent that reasoning was used to make decisions that would be true. That is not to say that something does not cause the reasoning to be the way it is.

You may say that a particular reasoning is not even one link in the chain of causation, but just a "sterile flower on the tree", so to speak. Some reasons seem to be this way, other reasons seem to be a link in the chain of causation.
I think Jess mentioned a husband, so I assumed he was a she.
How could one ever prove an action were without cause? All one could prove is that no cause was discovered.
I would think that would be a means rather than an end. Making decisions on *sound* reasoning would involve simply knowing an accurate fact or drawing an accurate inference, so of course this would enable one to do whatever they intend. If instincts float your boat, than they do, but we can't very well argue with instincts so I wouldn't know how I could be any help trying to influence an instinctually caused unhappiness, except via influencing the reason.
I'm not sure why you would call that plagiarism.

I'm still not seeing what "legitimate" would be. I say the religion is a delusion, as you imply there.
I'm sorta betting awareness of certain things, is more likely to lead to happiness than not, but I wouldn't rule out the possibility that it does not.
Well I would think doing things intentionally rather than by accident is more likely to lead to happiness, but this is not necessarily true. Knowledge brings control of happiness. This enables one to choose whether to sacrifice shorter-term pleasure for longer-term, vice versa, or to do whatever. What it does tend to eliminate, at least, is all that which is not for anyone's happiness at any time. I think you know of religious beliefs that would fall into this category. Instincts would seem to be the cause of desires rather than beliefs (or if instincts were the cause of beliefs it would just be too difficult to try to determine this) so instincts are the just something the reason has to deal with in making decisions.
That is one definition, in which case I wouldn't say I were arguing for hedonism to say I am (or try to be) a hedonist. Another definition would be that pleasure seeking is some sort of "proper" aim, or that it is utilitarian. The only aims which are proper for other people benefit my pleasure of course.

[ February 03, 2002: Message edited by: hedonologist ]</p>

DRFseven

Jess, even though I'm sure you know that the mammalian motivational system is a "selfish" one (seeing that it's a survival mechanism), based on reward/punishment, I'm also sure that is not what you're talking about. You're wondering if a conscientious person, who is concerned with the plight of future offspring, might formulate a valid reason for bringing children into a harsh world.

My answer would be that, though there is no "valid" reason (rational reason) to do so, there is also no valid reason not to. If there is ultimately no reason for the human race to continue, there is also no reason for it not to continue. Further, your own children may experience grief (certainly they will at some point), but they will also experience joy. After all, most older adults report being glad instead of sorry they were born, so the odds are that the experience will be positive. As to children who contend they wish they "had never been born", this is a fairly common adolescent expression of angst, though there is a positive correlation between bipolar disordered adolescents and instances of making this particular contention. However, adolescents, in general, are notoriously famous for experiencing more mood swings than the rest of the population, for being more impulsive, and for being dramatic in their presentation. Adolescents and teens engage in suicidal behavior for reasons adults would often consider trivial (such as being grounded for a weekend or making a bad grade), and the vast majority who fail in their attempts later report being glad they failed. Believe me, I'm not making light of adolescent pain; it's very real; but it often "goes away." Sometimes it doesn't go away, but, usually it does to a significant extent.

polyglot

QUOTE/WHY? Give me a reason. Give me a reason that makes it worth it to bring a child who--- subjectively--- may hate this world more than I do into this world. Or worse, who may make others already here do the same.\QUOTE

Jess, do you really want an answer? Just venting? I suppose a question to you, though rhetoric, might serve to explain my answer: Can you recall something said or done by someone else, to you, that granted you a "personally better" attitude? Remember what that felt like? I would submit that that's a reason, although usually seen more clearly in hindsight. One reason I'm stoked about having kids (I have one), is the opportunity for him to IMPROVE. Consider the sorry state people are in immediately after birth...naked, optionless. Sure, that kid might grow up and hate you, the world, him/herself - lots of em do, but it's your job to GIVE OF YOURSELF in order that you might, armed with experience, HELP SOMEONE OUT. Yeah, that's what I'm saying...giving to someone else is what it's all about (and please don't quote me as saying that's the only drive for procreation, eh). By having a child, you're not the one giving him all the crap that life dishes out, it's something called the human condition. The Princess Bride said it well, "Life IS pain, highness...anyone who says otherwise is selling something." There is a degree of pain for everyone. Your job as parent is not to increase it, dig?

alek0

I don't see any valid (selfish or unselfish)reason *for myself* to have children. I see many reasons not to. Some can be viewed as unselfish like "since I would be uncapable of being a good mother, I will not have children" while some can be viewed as selfish "having a child would seriously impair my career" or "the best way to avoid episiotomy or C section is not to get pregnant in the first place.

Some people decide to have children, and for whatever reason they do it, it is their choice. I may disagree with that choice if number is larger than two (overpopulation problem) but any attempt to control reproductive decisions is a slippery slope imo. However, I don't like it when my choice for not having kids is attacked as selfish.
And I hear that on regular basis, that and the famous "you'll change your mind when you get older, and it might be too late and you'll be sorry, better have them early".